As Rebrands Go…

This one is probably a waste of time.

Animal lovers and long-term donors have blasted the RSPCA for its ‘woke‘ rebrand which seemingly casts dairy and poultry farmers as villains who ‘abuse’ animals.

The charity’s bizarre video compilation, launched as part of its ‘For Every Kind’ campaign, appears to compare those who abuse dogs to anyone who has ever swatted a spider away or treated themselves to a lobster in a restaurant.

A range of animals are seen singing along to Aretha Franklins’ Respect, as clips show chickens and dairy cows, a bee being caught in a lawnmower and a snail almost being stepped on.

The campaign even questions why Britons treat rats and foxes as pests yet ‘we love hedgehogs who visit our garden’ and ‘turn a blind eye to the suffering of billions of meat chickens’.

I don’t donate to this so called charity. The final nail for me was its decision to use the legal system to get money from the beneficiaries of the deceased who were unwise enough to leave them bequests. And having lost a case, wasted more donated money dragging cases to the appeals courts. The RSPCA is a classic example of a fake charity. It is a political organisation that has far too much power when it comes to matters such as prosecution and spends money on lining the pockets of its executives. It is not a charity that looks after the interests of animals. It is a despicable, greedy organisation and I despise it utterly.

One farmer immediately hit out at the ‘out of touch video’, asking the charity, ‘so you’re implying that farming and farmers mistreat their animals then?’ while another slammed it for creating a ‘misleading’ campaign.

Well, of course they do.

One long time RSPCA donor told MailOnline: ‘I won’t give them money again. I am totally furious about the lack of respect they have shown for farmers and gardeners – the RSPCA’s management are totally out of touch with those who are funding them.

You are late to the party, but welcome nonetheless.

The outcry comes months after the charity was slammed for alienating its traditional pet-loving advocates with its push for plant-based diets and its appointment of Extinction Rebellion supporter Chris Packham.

Ah, yes, that obnoxious, toxic tosser. Any organisation that involves him is best avoided by a parsec or two.



  1. RNLI, RSPCA, and most other ‘charities’ seem to me to be set up to provide a good living for their founders/executives, and as such I will never give to any of them again, especially those that use emotional blackmail to persuade the credulous to give hard-earned money for their spurious ’causes’

  2. For a very short while, I was the Treasurer of my local RSPCA branch.Having spent several weeks trying to understand the books I realised that there was absolutely no control over either income or expenditure,both locally or nationally, as each branch was being run as an independent body. The warning bells were ringing loud and clear so I resigned with immediate effect and made sure that the reasons why were well understood.I cut all ties with the organisation.
    Another institution taken over by political activists

  3. The US organisation PETA is pretty much despised by anyone with a functioning brain. Maybe the RSPCA is aspiring to be like them. One PETA classic was a poster claiming that sheep were skinned for their wool. If we are going to start worrying about all the little creepy crawlies, that at least means that the vegans won’t be able to be self righteous any more. You can’t grow vegetables on a viable scale without pesticides.

  4. A lot of animal neglect is caused by people who don’t mean it, just can’t afford vet bills. RSPCA could put money into opening up centres where people on low incomes can get vet care cheap. Vets just expect you to take out insurance, but it’s expensive and cover varies. PDSA and Blue Cross have a few centers but they are few and far between. When you take on an animal, you can afford it, but if it lives to a good age, your circumstances change, or income doesn’t keep in line with vet fees, you find you are struggling.

  5. Add ‘removing charity status from political pressure groups’ to the list of activities for a determined government to reset public life to a sane footing.

    Along with defunding the BBC, reforming the National Health Service, scrapping recognition of the ECHR, WHO, UN etc.

    It will take years. Still reform of the Charities would be a good first step.

  6. If organisations like the RSPCA, take money from the government, they are not a charity. The are an NGO which, when it becomes powerful enough, used it’s political clout to try and change policies to their favour. How much does the CEO receive (I won’t say ‘wasn’t because I don’t believed that do), and how many 50 pence pieces from dear old ladies pensions will it take?
    If they really want to be a charity, stop taking government money. Not that they will, of course.

  7. I gave up on the RSPCA many years ago when they suggested that we shouldn’t eat shrimps (or was it prawns?) I won’t even buy things from their shops. As Stonyground suggests, it looks like they’re fast becoming a branch of the loathsome PETA

  8. ’The campaign even questions why Britons treat rats and foxes as pests yet ‘we love hedgehogs who visit our garden..’

    Certain animals are classed as vermin, that’s why. Like RSPCA workers.

    • This suggests that they are being deliberately obtuse. Rats and foxes are considered vermin for sound reasons. Hedgehogs eat garden pests, particularly slugs.

  9. Any corporate aims for ‘growth’, not stasis, certainly not shrinkage. The RSPCA is just a corporate with a different funding model, its well-rewarded board members set out to achieve growth however that can be done.
    No different from the RNLI, the Catholic Church and most other large ‘charities’. Charities they are not, anyone contributing is living up to the old dictum that a fool and his money are soon parted.
    Don’t give any of them the oxygen of finance and get your MP to stop the government subsidising them too.

  10. Once a charity accepts government funding, it not only ceases to be a charity, it’s purpose is reversed too. A genuine charity is set up when a problem is identified with the intention of solving or at least alleviating that problem. Once government funding becomes involved, the purpose of the former charity becomes to increase and exacerbate the problem in order to attract more funding.
    As far as I am aware, it is actually illegal for charities to do political lobbying, one of those laws that is only enforced if it is convenient.

Comments are closed.